Bail application dismissed by single judge as petitioner was identified by witnesses at trial despite lack of FIR name due to prior sightings, and a weapon was recovered from him.
Petition for regular bail dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No.M-12775 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-12775 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 4th, 2012
Surender alias Samunder
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. B.S.Rathee, Advocate, for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Surender alias Samunder, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 154 dated 26.4.2009 at Police Station Sadar, District Sonepat for an offence punishable under sections 148, 302, 120-B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and section 25 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR names Rajbir alias Dallu, Devender alias Dheela, Devender Butania, Jasbir and Madan Lal. According to him, the 6th person who was shown to be driver
Crl. Misc. No.M-12775 of 2012
2
of Verna car is now claimed to be the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner did not use any weapon and that his identity is also not tried to be established by holding a test identification parade. He has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.8.2009 and he is entitled to bail.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that a 7.6 mm gun which has been used in the occurrence has been recovered from the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has been identified by Chand Roop and Rajbir examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively at the trial. According to him, it is not a case where witnesses had a fleeting glimpse of the culprit. According to him, it is evident from the FIR itself that the said unknown boy had been seen many times with Dallu and in these circumstances, identification of the petitioner as that culprit by the witnesses at the trial may be the proper evidence to prove the identity. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a hard core criminal and that there are a number of cases of this nature pending against him in Delhi as well as in Haryana.
It is true that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. However, foundation is laid in the FIR for admission of evidence of identification of the petitioner at the trial by mentioning that the said unidentified person was seen with Dallu many times. The witnesses, therefore, had the opportunity to see the petitioner a number of times and therefore, the evidence of his identification at the trial would not suffer from want of test identification parade at the investigation stage. There is recovery of 7.6 mm gun from the petitioner. The petitioner is definitely having a large number of cases against him which are very serious, registered in Delhi and Haryana.
Crl. Misc. No.M-12775 of 2012
3
For these reasons, I do not find the petitioner to be entitled to
bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
July 4th , 2012 som
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving murder and use of firearms.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surender alias Samunder
State of Haryana
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
